Wind turbines around airports

[oldyellr]

Still like coming here from time to time, but I am not going to debate those "dam turbines" or the "green energy scam". Wind or Solar may not be the long term answer but they are a viable business that have far better margins than aviation ever will. The government do not subsidise the companies that own the parks, the only influence the government has is they have to request the power and put a tender out. Solar, wind, biomass, hydro all bid on the same RFP.

The only reason there are good margins in the wind power industry is because of the very generous subsidies. Without the subsidies, wind power would never have come to Ontario because it's grossly inefficient and unreliable. Only with the help of the Liberal Government doling out our tax dollars and sharply increased electricity rates has the wind industry become viable in Ontario. It would never have happened otherwise because it's poor business model without subsidies.

I began this thread not as a condemnation of wind power, but to draw attention to these turbines built around airports as hazards to aviation. Obviously TC believes they're hazards when built where they weren't supposed to be at Chatham and have now been ordered taken down after the wind company would not do so voluntarily.

I see this thread has now shifted to the pros and cons of wind turbines in general, so I may as well add my 5 cents,

1. Wind power is inefficient and unsustainable without subsidies.

2. Adverse health effects on a significant number of people living even 2, 5 or 10 kilometres away are coming to light.

3. They reduce property values, so nearby residents cannot afford to move away.

4. They waste valuable farm land.

5. The net energy they produce is not "green" because conventional gas plants have to be idling on standby for when the wind does not blow.

6. The resulting high cost of electricity to cover the subsidies has driven so much industry out of Ontario we're on the path to bankruptcy.

These are just a few drawbacks off the top of my head, but there are many, many more.

[TeePeeCreeper]

2. Adverse health effects on a significant number of people living even 2, 5 or 10 kilometres away are coming to light.

3. They reduce property values, so nearby residents cannot afford to move away.

4. They waste valuable farm land.

These are just a few drawbacks off the top of my head, but there are many, many more.

Although I agree with most of your now edited (in quoting you) post....
Might you have any links to solidify the points in your last post as I quoted?

I am all too familiar with the hazards of high tension lines in residential areas but I have yet to have see or read any documentation which would stipulate that a wind farm adversely affects health nor can I imagine that a wind turbine would cause anymore of a "loss of land" as a oil derrick would...

All the best,
TPC

[midwingcrisis]

Has MOT had to deal with obstacles before @ Chatham? Does UG own and operate a J31 or Avanti there?

[azimuthaviation]

Wind farms are becoming more viable, and less of a gimmick. Sometimes governments need to support initiatives before they become profitable. Some initiatives never become profitable but are worth investing in, for the greater good and whatnot. I still dont see wind farms being the best solution for energy. Too expensive, too much infrastructure, too many moving parts. How that compares to conventional sources, who knows?

I am a huge proponent of solar power. No moving parts, all solid state, easy to store, getting more economical every year. Definitely has its technical and reliability challenges but has the potential to be the worlds primary source of electric power.

[azimuthaviation]

Once we develop a cheap, high capacity, light weight storage cell...it will change the world very quickly.

"pumped storage hydro", which can improve the economics of renewables

Pumped storage hydro can achieve 86% efficiency, that is probably far more realistic than a light weight storage cell (BTW, its not aviation, it can be as heavy as it needs, its not moving remember?) The technology is far away, and likely wont be cheap. Pumped storage is a good alternative, or even mechanical storage. that also smooths out spikes and troughs in electricity production caused by variable sun intensity (one of the main technical problems with solar power).

[Aeroplane17]

Has MOT had to deal with obstacles before @ Chatham? Does UG own and operate a J31 or Avanti there?

J31 is owned by Chartright under contract to UG. UG doesn't know the dangers as Chartright doesn't want to rock the boat so they don't stop operating out of Chatham. UG is huge on safety in every aspect of its corporation but seems to neglect or simply doesn't know its flight dept concerns about the encroaching windmills. Go figure.

[midwingcrisis]

As a shareholder of the UG parent, I am deeply concerned with your remarks and situation at Chatham. These wind farms pose a huge risk at and near any airport or where aircraft operate. I believe we own the J31 aircraft and handed off daily babysitting to a mgmt company in Canada. We own and operate a Hawker 4000 and Hawker 900XP in Houston as well as some single engine pipeline patrol aircraft. Yes the corporation lives and breathes Safety.

[Troubleshot]

I agree, wind turbines have no place around an airport.

[oldyellr]

Although I agree with most of your now edited (in quoting you) post....
Might you have any links to solidify the points in your last post as I quoted?

Since what we're discussing here is the effects of wind turbines built too close to airports, the actual unsustainability of would be off-topic. I only brought it up because others had. As for links, a simple Google search will lead you to reams of evidence. Also, the findings of the 2012 Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study are to be released this year, so we'll learn more.

[Aeroplane17]

I believe we own the J31 aircraft and handed off daily babysitting to a mgmt company in Canada

No you don't, Chartright owns and operates it.

We own and operate a Hawker 4000 and Hawker 900XP in Houston as well as some single engine pipeline patrol aircraft. Yes the corporation lives and breathes Safety.

Yes, Spectra energy owns those aircraft and refuses to land in Chatham at night or in IMC because of the windmill situation.

[pdw]

It's not just the highest point of the structure to worry about, the tips of the blades at maximum height. If turbulence is thrown higher above the top blade's tips when the blades are moving well, it will affect the flight path above/downwind-of.

In the South Dakota accident a few months ago it should be possible to establish if the piper fell through the blades from a higher altitude 'wake encounter' coming toward the towers from the lee side. For example, at the time of impact, was it in level flight or already leaned over / descending ? Seeing the aircraft was found near the bottom of one tower after hitting two of its blades, leaves the possibility that a much higher flight path destabilized into a descent-angle where blade height is reached involuntarily before contact with 400Agl windmill parts.

[midwingcrisis]

Aeroplane17 you are contradicting your earlier statement "UG doesn't know the dangers as Chartright doesn't want to rock the boat so they don't stop operating out of Chatham."however you say "Yes, Spectra energy owns those aircraft and refuses to land in Chatham at night or in IMC because of the windmill situation." Spectra being the parent co. Any chance you can elaborate on the issue?

[Aeroplane17]

Aeroplane17 you are contradicting your earlier statement "UG doesn't know the dangers as Chartright doesn't want to rock the boat so they don't stop operating out of Chatham."however you say "Yes, Spectra energy owns those aircraft and refuses to land in Chatham at night or in IMC because of the windmill situation." Spectra being the parent co. Any chance you can elaborate on the issue?

UG has nothing todo with the actual day to day operations of its flight dept. it's contracted out to Chart right as a dedicated service provider.

When UG was briefly purchased by Duke energy they were told to dismantle their flight dept. When Spectra came into the picture they asked where their flight dept was? At this point it was too costly to purchase another aircraft and start another flight dept hence Chartright getting the contract. None of these companies although they claim to their clients are safe, are not near as safety conscious as UG or Spectra. Fact.

Spectra has its own corporate flight dept with spectra energy pilots (employees) and makes its own rules as far as procedures continuing the safety mandate adopted by the entire corporation. They feel it's even a little bit unsafe, they don't go. Try that at one of these chart right companies and they would tell you wx is above mins. Go. Money to be made.

There's a lot more behind the scenes I can't discuss on here.

[midwingcrisis]

To your knowledge has UG or SE ever tabled any concerns publicly regarding wind turbines at or near the Chatham Airport?

[pdw]

Dealing with the Silo will have been pocket change compared to this.

[GA MX Trainer Dude]

Yup - The Silo is gone - but this old girl didn't have much problem today with the wind turbines!!

PITA for photography!!








Mx

[oldyellr]

News article on the above.

http://blackburnnews.com/chatham/chatha ... ntroversy/

[oldyellr]

http://youtu.be/XWIrAdcscoA

[co-joe]

2200 to maintain your car?

Can you break that down?

Yeah wow, time to buy a Toyota. I think I've spent that in 5 years on mine... of course I spend 3 times that a year on gas...

[oldyellr]

http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/time- ... rm-safety/

[GyvAir]

Now if they'd left them running, I'd be really impressed.